Court to Review Local Campaign Financing Law : Proposition H: Justices will rule on use of taxpayer money in city, county elections. They could determine the authority of municipalities to enact measures in state-regulated areas.

The state Supreme Court, in a test of municipal authority, said Thursday it will decide whether the city of Los Angeles and other cities and counties can use taxpayer money to help finance local election campaigns.

The justices will review a key part of Proposition H, the ethics reform measure approved by Los Angeles voters in 1990, providing about $2 million a year in matching funds for mayoral and other city candidates who agree to limit campaign spending.

The action came in an order signed by all seven members of the court. No date was set for arguments in the case.

A state appellate court in Los Angeles last April upheld the law, rejecting claims that it conflicted with a ban on using public funds in political campaigns enacted under Proposition 73, a far-ranging statewide initiative passed in 1988.

Proposition 73’s sponsors, State Sen. Quentin L. Kopp (I-San Francisco) and Assemblyman Ross Johnson (R-La Habra), and City Councilman Ernani Bernardi appealed the ruling to the state high court, arguing that the statewide measure must take precedence over any local effort to permit public-funded campaigns.

Last year, in a separate case, an appellate court in Sacramento struck down a Sacramento County ordinance that also called for partial funding of campaigns for candidates who limit expenditures. That court found an impermissible conflict between the ordinance and Proposition 73.

Kopp said Thursday he was “not surprised but delighted” with the high court action. “This is a very important legal question, affecting more than just campaign financing,” he said.

The high court’s decision could determine the authority of California municipalities to enact local laws in state-regulated areas as diverse as road safety or mass political mailings by public officials, Kopp said.

Los Angeles Assistant City Atty. Anthony Saul Alperin said the justices’ move to review the case was not necessarily a sign that the court will strike down the city’s campaign finance plan. The rulings from the two courts of appeal posed a conflict that only the high court can resolve, he said.

“We will be arguing the issues very vigorously,” Alperin said. “We think we have strong arguments to make.”

In addition to allowing tax-supported campaigns, Proposition H created a city ethics commission, limited campaign contributions, provided pay raises for the mayor and City Council members, restricted outside income for officials, and limited activities of lobbyists. Those other provisions are not at issue before the court.

Kopp, Johnson and Bernardi filed suit challenging the campaign finance scheme as a violation of Proposition 73. A key section in the initiative says: “No public officer shall expend and no candidate shall accept any public moneys for the purpose of seeking elective office.”

The appeal court, by a vote of 2 to 1, turned down the challenge, finding that the initiative did not bar the city from enacting its own tax-funded campaign plan as “a matter of purely local concern.” Proposition 73, it concluded, was not intended to mandate a single, statewide body of law that would bar local efforts to reform the political process.

Appellate Justice H. Walter Croskey, joined by Appellate Justice Joan Dempsey Klein, noted that using public funds for local campaigns would not have a “corrupting influence” and would limit the cost of campaigns and influence of special-interest groups. Whether public funds are to be spent “is really a fiscal question to be decided by the taxpayers who pay the bill,” Croskey wrote.

“The decision by the city of Los Angeles to utilize some of its tax dollars as part of its political campaign and electoral ethics reform legislation is purely a municipal affair and not a matter of statewide concern,” the justice said.

In dissent, Appellate Justice Edward A. Hinz Jr. contended that the law was clear that on issues of statewide importance, a state law intended to occupy the field must prevail over a conflicting local measure. “There is no question that Proposition 73 preempts the matter of public financing,” Hinz said.

In other action Thursday, the state Supreme Court:

Refused to hear claims that two murder defendants were being denied a fairly selected jury because the Los Angeles County downtown Criminal Courts Building is not accessible to disabled prospective jurors. Charles L. Lindner, attorney for two men facing the death penalty, contended that capital defendants have a right to prospective jurors “whose recognition of confinement and death is probably far greater than that of the average citizen.”

Earlier, a state Court of Appeal acknowledged that the building was virtually inaccessible to mobility-impaired people but said that county officials were not required to order renovations. The county sends disabled prospective jurors to more accessible buildings, the court noted.

* Let stand an appellate court ruling barring a retrial for Luis Rodriguez, convicted in the murders of California Highway Patrol Officers Roy Blecher and William Freeman in Yolo County in 1978.

The high court in 1986 set aside Rodriguez’s death sentence because of a procedural error and ordered Superior Court Judge Joseph Karesh to resentence the defendant to death or life in prison. Instead, Karesh ordered a new trial on the grounds that a juror had improperly used his own car to measure the length of a drive to determine whether the defendant could have been at the scene when the crime was committed.

The appeal court agreed that the juror’s action was misconduct but found that it could not have affected the verdict because the length of the trip was not disputed at the trial. The panel reinstated Rodriguez’s convictions and ordered Karesh to resentence the defendant, adding that if he did not do so in 90 days the case would be transferred to another judge.